2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From the date of service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the date of service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, 6% per annum, and from the following day to the

20% (the purport of the appeal is 15%) of the total amount of 20% (15%) shall be paid.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is that it is identical to the written judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The addition;

O Part 11 of the Decision of the first instance court shall be added to the following:

In addition, Article 686(3) of the Civil Act provides that "if the mandate terminates due to any cause not attributable to the mandatary in the course of performing the delegated affairs, the mandatary may claim remuneration according to the ratio of affairs already handled." However, as seen earlier, the service payment in this case is a remuneration paid on the condition of completion of the "Conclusion of a sales contract for 95% out of the real estate in the previous parcel of real estate subject to the project, which is not related to success or failure," rather than the remuneration for performing the delegated affairs. Therefore, the above provision under the premise that the remuneration is paid in return for the handling of general affairs cannot be applied to this case (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4001 Decided May 29, 2001 cited by the plaintiff, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4001 Decided May 29, 2001)."

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Do-young

Judge Maximum Wol-man